Home
Victim was manoeuvring to avoid parked cars

A cyclist who broke his pelvis and elbow after crashing on Lewes Road, Brighton, has blamed an unnecessary kerb for the incident. However, the council says it is not difficult to see and has suggested that inconsiderate parking may have contributed to the fall.

The Argus reports that cycle lanes were added to Lewes Road in 2014, although changes were subsequently made to Vogue Gyratory’s northbound junction due to issues with “hidden kerbs”.

Robert Parr hit a low kerb in November while attempting to re-enter the cycle lane at Coombe Terrace while avoiding parked cars blocking his way.

“That particular kerb, I don’t see it serves any useful purpose and I don’t think they should have put it in if they had really considered it. Much of what the council has done for cyclists has been good but that kerb is obsolete.”

A council spokesman said: “It’s unlikely cyclists would generally regard this kerb as difficult to see. It is not near the kerb at the Vogue Gyratory which was quickly removed some years ago after reports of cycle accidents there.

“However we will make sure relevant transport managers are aware. We’re always concerned to hear of cycle accidents as we’re constantly working to make cycling safer and wish Mr Parr a full recovery.”

He added: “At this location it is likely there is much very short-term parking as people pop to shops. Unfortunately, it’s not possible for parking staff to be there all the time.”

Campaign group Bricycles has raised the issue of cycle lane kerbs with the city council. They said while improvements had been made, this kerb and other “low visibility obstructions” were unlikely to be removed.

It added that inconsiderate parking blocking cycle lanes had not been “satisfactorily resolved” for more than 20 years.

Parking enforcement and CCTV monitoring of the site has reportedly been increased since the crash with 17 tickets issued in one evening.

The cycle lane is also to be marked with red surfacing and more double yellow lines, and missing bollards will be replaced.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

11 comments

Avatar
Peowpeowpeowlasers [509 posts] 1 week ago
6 likes

> Unfortunately, it’s not possible for parking staff to be there all the time

 

> 17 tickets issued in one evening.

 

Perhaps they should be.

 

Avatar
Rapha Nadal [542 posts] 1 week ago
1 like

I know this bit of curb well as it's almost had me off the bike in the past.  Fucking idiotic design more than anything else.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX [440 posts] 1 week ago
1 like

The picture shows it's not even a mandatory cycle lane, so what's the point in that kerb which is only a danger to cyclists and doesn't seem to be achieving anything else?

I've got a lot of time for Brighton but this looks like an obvious mistake and trying to shift the blame onto parked cars, which the cyclist didn't crash into, isn't taking responsibility.

Avatar
Evileden [2 posts] 1 week ago
3 likes

The parking is the issue . The curb separates the lane and allows cyclists to continue when traffic joins from the right hand junction.
The problem is delivery drivers from the takeaways

Avatar
spen [163 posts] 1 week ago
2 likes

Why try to ride over the kerb when it looks to be about 30 metres long,why not  just rejoin the lane at the end?

Avatar
Evileden [2 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes
spen wrote:

Why try to ride over the kerb when it looks to be about 30 metres long,why not  just rejoin the lane at the end?

Because you are not controlled by the traffic lights that way

Avatar
alansmurphy [599 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes

The kerb either needs to be good enough to stop the cars thus much higher or be replaced by magic paint...

Avatar
spen [163 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes
Evileden wrote:
spen wrote:

Why try to ride over the kerb when it looks to be about 30 metres long,why not  just rejoin the lane at the end?

Because you are not controlled by the traffic lights that way

 

If he jumped back on before the lights he must have been blind not to see a kerb as high as the one next to the lights, its full height.  From the story I got the impression he rode over the lower kerb after the bollard, after the lights as shown in the picture at the top of the article.

Avatar
jh27 [66 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes
spen wrote:
Evileden wrote:
spen wrote:

Why try to ride over the kerb when it looks to be about 30 metres long,why not  just rejoin the lane at the end?

Because you are not controlled by the traffic lights that way

 

If he jumped back on before the lights he must have been blind not to see a kerb as high as the one next to the lights, its full height.  From the story I got the impression he rode over the lower kerb after the bollard, after the lights as shown in the picture at the top of the article.

That would be true of people saw with their eyes, however people see with their brain eyes merely provide some of the input. Kerbs don't belong between cycle paths and the rest of the road. This kerb is a hazard for cyclists and also pedestrians, especially pedestrians with poor vision or whose vision is temporarily obstructed. What moron thought it was a good idea to put a trip hazard next to a road?

Avatar
spen [163 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes
jh27 wrote:
spen wrote:
Evileden wrote:
spen wrote:

Why try to ride over the kerb when it looks to be about 30 metres long,why not  just rejoin the lane at the end?

Because you are not controlled by the traffic lights that way

 

If he jumped back on before the lights he must have been blind not to see a kerb as high as the one next to the lights, its full height.  From the story I got the impression he rode over the lower kerb after the bollard, after the lights as shown in the picture at the top of the article.

That would be true of people saw with their eyes, however people see with their brain eyes merely provide some of the input. Kerbs don't belong between cycle paths and the rest of the road. This kerb is a hazard for cyclists and also pedestrians, especially pedestrians with poor vision or whose vision is temporarily obstructed. What moron thought it was a good idea to put a trip hazard next to a road?

As it's in the carriageway  metres from a light controlled crossing I don't see how you can describe it as a trip hazard, a trip hazard being a risk to pedestrians.  The only purpose it appears to serve is to stop vehicles taking too wide a turn on the junction.  It might be pointless but the still doesn't explain why someone would try to ride over it rather than traveling 10 or 20 metres along the carriageway before rejoining the cycle lane

Avatar
Rebecca Reynolds [2 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes

The cyclist didn't see the kerb at all because a vehicle concealed the entrance to the lane with the kerb separator. This separator does not occur further back on this southbound lane. I understand the rider was also being followed by a bus at the time and normal busy traffic conditions applied.